fix(deps): hypothesis update and text, refs #2262

[milssky]

I have made things!

@pradeep90 hey! Your code is broken :) Can you validate it?

In hypothesis==6.137.2, this code produced the following output:

>>> from hypothesis import strategies as st
>>> st.functions(
...     like=lambda *args, **kwargs: None,
...     returns=st.booleans(),
...     pure=True,
... )
functions(like=lambda *args, **kwargs: <unknown>, returns=booleans(), pure=True)

Whereas in hypothesis==6.140.2, the output is already:

functions(like=lambda *args, **kwargs: None, returns=booleans(), pure=True)

So this is indeed a direct change in the library itself.

Checklist

• I have double checked that there are no unrelated changes in this pull request (old patches, accidental config files, etc)
• I have created at least one test case for the changes I have made
• I have updated the documentation for the changes I have made
• I have added my changes to the CHANGELOG.md

Related issues

Refs #2262

🙏 Please, if you or your company finds dry-python valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://github.com/sponsors/dry-python. As a thank you, your profile/company logo will be added to our main README which receives hundreds of unique visitors per day.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (82ef3ef) to head (c2edebb).
⚠️ Report is 410 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            master     #2263    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files           80        81     +1     
  Lines         2485      2581    +96     
  Branches       437        44   -393     
==========================================
+ Hits          2485      2581    +96     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[sobolevn]

The question is: does this function actually return None? Or is it a repr bug?

[milssky]

weirder and weirder

>>> from hypothesis.internal.lambda_sources import lambda_description
>>> lambda_description(lambda *args, **kwargs: None)
'lambda *args, **kwargs: None'
>>> lambda_description(lambda *args: None)
'lambda *args: <unknown>'
>>> lambda_description(lambda: None)
'lambda: <unknown>'

I keep looking

[pradeep90]

Looks like the repr of lambdas was changed in HypothesisWorks/hypothesis#4500. Afaics, they used to always use <unknown>, but now they refine the lambda body string where possible. I think this should be a harmless change for us.

(Found this via the changelog for 6.137.3

https://github.com/HypothesisWorks/hypothesis/blob/275d4964d1df8f3bcac5eef96c36407d15824b56/hypothesis-python/docs/changelog.rst?plain=1#L233-L245

This patch makes the stringification of lambdas, and as a result
certain automatic filter rewriting operations, more robust. This fixes
issue https://github.com/HypothesisWorks/hypothesis/issues/4498, where a lambda was mistakenly identified as the identity
operator due to "inspect.getsource()" only returning the first line of
the lambda definition.

As a result, the "repr" of strategies filtered or mapped by lambda
functions may change slightly.

)